Clinician-Teacher Promotion Criteria

University of Washington
Department of Radiology

Guidelines for Appointment and Promotion on
the Clinician-Teacher Pathway

Overview:

Criteria for evaluation of the clinician-teacher faculty in the Department of Radiology focus on three general areas: 1) clinical competence and clinical service; 2) clinical teaching; and 3) scholarly activity. As required by the medical school’s policies for faculty in the clinician-teacher pathway, clinician-teacher faculty members in the Department of Radiology should have a majority time commitment to clinical work and teaching. The criteria for appointments and promotions of clinician-teacher faculty are described below.

Evaluation of Clinical Competence and Clinical Service:

The evaluation of clinical competence should be based on an assessment of clinical skills, general medical knowledge, knowledge specific to subspecialty areas of Radiology, humanistic qualities, interpersonal skills, and professional behavior and attitudes. Examples of guidelines to determine clinical service include number of patients seen, clinical revenues, time of clinical practice, and new or innovative services provided. The evaluation should also include an assessment of effective leadership and documentation of management of a major clinical program.

The evaluation process should incorporate peer-review and be performed at the department level in ways that are appropriate to the individual’s specialty. Board certification in a specialty field may be considered in the evaluation process but is by itself not sufficient evidence of clinical competence for the promotion process. The department chair will evaluate clinical productivity in accordance with performance expectations agreed upon at the time of appointment to the faculty or altered during subsequent annual review.

A Clinical Competence Assessment Form should be used by qualified faculty to assess the performance of clinician-teachers. At least four faculty members who are qualified to evaluate the clinician-teacher should complete these forms at the time of each evaluation. It is expected that some evaluations will be from faculty members outside of the Department of Radiology. After initial appointment (usually at the Assistant Professor level) each clinician-teacher should be evaluated at approximately two-year intervals until the clinician-teacher has been promoted to Associate Professor. These evaluations should be specifically performed in the year prior to a clinician-teacher’s reappointment as Assistant Professor, promotion to Associate Professor and promotion to Professor.

Evaluation of Teaching Competence:

The evaluation of teaching skills and role as a medical educator should be based on a review of the quality of the teaching interactions with students, residents, fellows, and practicing physicians; and an assessment of innovative teaching techniques, teaching materials, instructional resources or educational programs developed. The evaluation should also include an assessment of effective leadership and management of a major educational program.

Such evaluation should be performed by the department’s Education Committee. This committee should review all available materials from the department’s teaching evaluation system. These materials include: 1) Annual faculty self-report of teaching contributions; 2) Clinical Teaching Assessment Forms collected from the medical students, residents and fellows; 3) Ratings of classroom teaching in human biology courses; 4) Ratings of lectures given for continuing medical education courses; 5) Ratings of teaching skills demonstrated in other settings such as clinical teaching as subspecialty attending, grand rounds and teaching conferences; and 6) Peer ratings.

The peer ratings of teaching skills will be obtained by including questions about teaching effectiveness on the Clinical Competence Assessment Form and by peer observation of teaching interactions. The Teaching Evaluation Committee will prepare a summary of the teaching skills of the faculty member for presentation to the Appointments and Promotions Committee of the Department and to the Department Chair.

Evaluation of Clinical Scholarship:

The evaluation of scholarship should be based on a review of the quality of journal publications, chapters, textbooks, contributions as a collaborator on clinical or educational research projects, and the number of invited presentations at regional or national meetings. Scholarly contributions may focus on clinical medicine, health services or applied clinical research, medical education or other relevant fields.

The evaluation should be conducted at the department level and include a review of the annual faculty self-report of scholarly activities. Letters solicited from qualified peers who are not personally familiar with the individual are important in evaluating the quality of the scholarly achievements.

Objective evidence of scholarship should be required for faculty advancement. Although clinician-teachers are not expected to be independent investigators they should demonstrate scholarship by collaborative research, curriculum development or program development. Examples of scholarship include (not exclusively):

  • Medical Education (e.g., development and implementation of curriculum, teaching strategies, testing methods). This should include some end-product that can be evaluated such as syllabus materials, published reports, textbook chapters, computer-based programs, videotapes, etc.
  • Clinical research (e.g., disease descriptions, case reports, participation in clinical trials, scholarly reviews in peer-reviewed journals and book chapters).
  • Managerial or administrative development in medicine or medical education, which should be published whenever possible. 

Criteria for entry into the regular faculty as Clinician-Teachers:

  • M.D. degree or equivalent degree, and equivalent clinical training to meet the American Board of Radiology certification requirements or, if trained outside the United States of America, completion of a comparable training program is expected.
  • Excellent clinical competence, documented from residency, fellowship or practice setting.
  • Salaried full-time in University-affiliated hospitals and clinics. This position should constitute their sole clinical activity. However, not all full-time faculty at these sites need be in the clinician-teacher pathway.
  • Documented evidence of teaching excellence.
  • Potential for development of scholarship for initial appointment.

Appointments of clinician-teacher faculty from outside of the University of Washington may not have all the documentation suggested for clinical competence and teaching excellence and the guidelines for the initial appointment of such faculty will need to be more flexible.

Criteria for Academic Rank for Clinician-Teachers:

1. Assistant Professor: Excellence and productivity as a clinician and excellence as a teacher. Appointment at the Assistant Professor rank generally would require some scholarly work that can be evaluated.

2. Associate Professor: Continued documented evidence and productivity as a clinician and continued high ranking as a teacher. Promotion to Associate Professor-rank generally would require continued evidence of productive scholarly activity that can be evaluated plus regional recognition for clinical or educational expertise. American Board of Radiology certification is expected.

3. Full Professor: Continued documentation excellence and productivity as a clinician, excellence as a teacher, and mature scholarship. National recognition for scholarly work or for leadership in clinical and teaching programs.

Document Actions